I believe the chips internal structure has (don't quote me on this), three layers in the chip itself. (I think I picked that out of one of the technical design documents.) Silicon from screwed-up dies and imperfect scraps are also commonly used as a heat-transfer medium. (That is what the GPU's use. The shiny surface is just a layer of silicon over the whole case. Same if you pull-off the metal case from any of the covered CPU's. They only use the metal case for extending the surface-area with the heat-sink and to reduce compression stress-load from the tightly pressing heat-sink, which would otherwise crush the thin layer of silicon. We use wood-blocks to pop the tops off of CPU's for direct fluid cooling. )

The majority of heat is pulled from the bottom of the chip, on the pad closest to the "processor layer". (The other two layers, I believe were the memory and data communications? Sitting above that "hot layer".)

This is just some random image of a three-layer design... Not the A1. (Someone would have to throw it into an acid-bath to wash-away the epoxy shell, to confirm the internal layers structure.)





P.S. It could be that the layers they talked about were "virtual layers", as in, separated on a singular die. However, these flip-chips usually indicate multi-layer stacking. So I have assumed the 28nm HPP process they used, was a 3-physical-layer setup. (If all on a singular layer, but isolated, then the hot layer would be the outer-edge layer, with the chip flipped for the pads to have larger direct faces and to allow better cooling against the heat-transfer substrate.)

That also assumes "Value" is steady...

What "value" will you be selling at? You need to ignore the calculators estimates, unless you are just mining and dumping. (Then you are one of the ones destroying your own value.)

If you are going to sell at $6,000/BTC, then what will your reward be after a year of mining? (All you are interested in is the QTY of BTC it produces in its life-time. Which is about two years for mining BTC directly. Then another two years mining alt-coins.)

P.S. With that power, you can manipulate the alt-coin markets. You have no chance in hell at manipulating BTC market, except by contributing to the decline of value, by cashing-out as you earn, on the exchanges. (Buy things with the BTC, or sell off-exchange, or actually hold for investment. That is how you get exchange prices to rise. That, and buying on the exchange, to sell off-line or to hold and invest.)

For all you know, the big guys mining may leave tomorrow, finding it unworthy to mine. Half the miners mining with old GHs miners, may retire their power-hungry devices soon too, or move to alt-coins. That is partly what is stalling the difficulty from racing off into oblivion. That, and the fact that we have reached a technical limit to consumption of power and affordable die-sizes.

I'd settle for that option too. They are just re-sellers anyways, up until now. So that would not hurt their image, only help it. 1.2THs or 2.0THs is fine, no matter where it comes from. I don't care if it comes from a miner called "Potty-Flush 2000", I am surprised they don't have ANTs listed as an option. I am sure they could have gotten a better deal with them anyways. BitMine does not seem like they are helping anyone much, including the re-sellers.

I am waiting for someone to stuff these into PVC tubes... (Holes drilled for the USB's, or wired directly.)

A bazooka of scrypt power! (Could even get-away with throwing half the heat-sink, in scrypt-mode, and using only one or two blower-fans. One on each end sucking-out, a screen in the middle for fresh-air in.)

Anyone want to donate 20 of these for a bazoka design? (Donate 1 unit, and I can build it for you. You can live with 19 units running.  Painted to taste, designed to taste.)

Might be able to get some nice acrylic tube, or form some acrylic into a square-tube. (20 would be smaller than a standard desk-width, I assume, by looking at the size.)

This is a serious offer, PM me if you are interested. I will skype to get details, to let you know if it is within my ability, to do what you wish.

The A1 chip design seems to have normal chip issues. As far as I can tell. (Seems to be 92% operating as expected, 100% in most areas.)

The other half of the issues seem to be external physical issues, with the supporting devices. (Related to communications and power from the circuits that drive the chips.)

The communications issues, seem to be a mixture of software/programming and some physical issues, stated above.

The software side is trying to be adapted to the chips physical limitations, related to tuning the specific hardware. The physical hardware, as with all first, second, and third revisions, is also being tuned. (Which often-times requires board redesign for new components to be added, or groups of components to be removed.) As for the A1 chip itself, I believe it is simply a layering issue with the package design. There is little that can be done for this chip at the moment, with exception for external supporting hardware changes and software flow of operation. If anything, all this effort will lead to an A2 design, for a future system.

As for AMT, the issue they are attempting to work around, is the shortcomings of the original design. Which they apparently put too much trust into "securing in advance". An obvious attempt to "get it made and get it out" as fast as possible. However, the shortcomings of the design have impacted the ability to use that setup in a cost-effective way. (All this stalling is further impacting that ability for returns too. It is a catch-22 situation.)

The position they seem to be in, is this...
1: Give everyone sub-par equipment that they might legally be entitled to return, adding even more overhead to loss...
2: Make everyone wait a little longer, so that a less lossy design can be fabricated, adding more potential reason to demand returns...
3: Start from scratch with a "new design", and HOPE that covers enough losses, with additional expenses going towards more components and "Protection-Plans", giving them something they might feel compelled to just keep and mine with...

At the moment, I think they have opted to ignore option #1, in-favor of a mixture of option #2 and #3. Since option #1 would have required giving many of us 2 units, under-clocked to consume less power and deliver the same hashing-power, with nearly double the boards/chips/PSU's.

I personally would have done this...
1: Give returns to anyone who wished. (Since they would have been getting a 1.5THs-2.0THs unit now, by the MPP. Money coming from some guy who just ordered a new machine, that would not be in the MPP and would thus be a 1.2THs machine, needing to be delivered 1-2months later.)
2: Offer anyone who wished, a "rush delivery", of a "sub-par system", indicating it as such, as an "it works", "pre-release". (With limited warranty. That would be a few who "needed it".)
3: Offered those who desired it, an "approved longer wait", for the "new design". Which would reset their wait-time, to the head of the line for the new boards, with any new MPP for that design.
4: Extended the estimated shipping-times for new orders, which were more realistic to compensate for any more "issues" that would have come through. (Delivering early, where possible, as a bonus... Otherwise on-time, for a bonus to AMT... Otherwise slightly late, with reason, with limited loss to all. As opposed to horribly late and late without explanation, notice, or any other communication.)

However, I am not them... They have failed to even contact me back about my serious offer to aid them with assistance that they asked for, even if only to say, "Sorry, we don't think we will need your offered services."

Not sure if any of that helps you sleep better. It isn't helping me sleep any better. Then again, I am an insomniac anyways. Sleep is something I do when my body refuses to stop responding to my brain. It is not a welcome thing, or a planned daily event for me.

One always null? (Alignment gap to detect breaks in registers, for error-checking, or an unregistered bit for future-use?)

Does it use error-checking-bits? (Like a check-sum or always high/low, or tick flip-flop bit.)

Might be used to differentiate between send/receive data, on the same stream. send=0 receive=1 dictating pass-along, or use, by the chip or the chip-reader. (Thus, addressable only by the hardware for internal use only.)

The A1-TEAM! (Avoids copyright issues. Well, unless we use a steak-sauce bottle pouring over a Philly Cheese-steak!)

Better yet, we could call ourselves the AM-TEAM... No... Then people would think the job would never get done.

So AMT is the A-TEAM and BitMine is the B-TEAM... Who is the C-TEAM... Oh CoinCraft/BitMine, they count as two teams... Who is the D-TEAM?

Remember, there is no "F" in miners! (Play on words, say it out loud.)

Remember, there is no "I" in TEAM... Well, there is also no "U"... So neither of us are on the team!

Just replying with random garbage, so this thread does not get lost in my giant list of posts. Going back to my corner again. xD

^^^ That is the guy responsible for helping keep the coin alive... He is who you want to support, to get value added back to the coin. He is the one extending the greatest effort. Join his team. From this point forward, Emerald should start to rise again. With real value.

Why do you think he had the block-chain explorer removed.

As I believe his quote to another coin was... "Like your coin, ice is melt" (Like Ice, he has, and is still destroying any value this coin could have had.)

That's ok, I am over any desire to take this coin anyways. Had a look at the screwed-up code, and it would require re-writing the whole coin from scratch. So, I will not be the one to do the take-over. Too much to be done, with no real potential for reward.

This coin, and most others below 1-diff will dropped from cryptsy in the up-coming months. He will have to manually find people that want to buy his crap after that. Sadly, so will anyone still mining the coin.

If the dev is smart, he will cash-out what he can, while there are still people listed to buy the coins, before we lock him out of being able to spend those blocks at all. Those blocks will be invalidated in the next version, for security reasons, since he did not earn them and is no longer using them to support the coin, only himself. He is not entitled to those coins any-longer.

I don't think any existing miner that is still using this coin, or prior coin-holder, would disagree to using that hard-forked version as the next forward version.

Though, at the moment, I wouldn't be listing coins higher than 0.0000001 lol. He will cash out. Don't give him so much BTC. lol.

Lots of tiny hoarders...

All the hoppers left. Looking into taking-over this coin by force now. lol.

First thing being locked-out will be the abandoned devs coins, so those don't come back on the market. Why, because I think we can all agree that his premine is not being used to do anything other than pay his rent.

What coin is APH?

P.S. Poloniex can't decide if it is [BTC/AIR (Correct)] or [AIR/BTC (Incorrect)]
{They changed the redundant symbol order on all the charts. They are not swappable. lol.}

It is xxx BTC /per/ 1 AIR...
Not xxx AIR /per/ 1 BTC...

That exchange just lost all my interest... lol.

You know your hash-rate... I just showed you what I was getting, for the prior hash-rate/diff-value. You should have similar results, better since you are in a pool with more spread of luck than any solo-miner.

Also, you can find a similar difficulty coin on a website like coinwarz, and see the "estimates"... If the coin is a 25 reward in 1.5 minutes, and it says you should earn 75 coins per day... you should be finding about 3 blocks. (Here that would be 3*3.72 = 11.16AIR in 24 hour period.) That is provided that the difficulty is roughly the same. But ballpark...

If you have only 5 coins a day... for days... then your pool may be getting share-raped and block-starved, or have lots of down-time you are not seeing. (If your hash-rate average is reported the same as your miner, then it is not the pool "shorting you". That is an external manipulation, screwing with the blocks acceptance. Unless your pool just got stuck with a bunch of orphans, from a mini-fork.) Your pool should have a history of blocks they found. Also, how "lucky they are"... and "expected blocks", and "expected next block-time". If it expects 1 block every 5 minutes, with the hash-rate they have, but it only finds 1 every 10 minutes... that is a "sign" of an issue. (As long as the difficulty didn't double between estimates, and keep doubling.)

Diff at the moment is about 17.08 (1.12M in cgminer)... Closest coin to that difficulty and reward, is WorldCoin so 50 reward @ 150 a day, is 3 blocks a day, which is about 11.16AIR... But WorldCoin is a 30-sec coin target, so I would expect double that estimate. Which would be about 22.32 AIR, which is what I actually get. (Fast-coins like that have a lot of rejects and losses. That is why I double that estimate from the website. I have gotten zero rejects with this higher diff, and only had about 5% rejects when AIR was super-low difficulty, due to the longer time for finding a target solution, and the implementation of the KGW.)

I am sitting on only 2000AIR at the moment. (No fear from me, I am a hoarder... I have millions in fireflycoin and thousands and thousands of emeraldcoins and also globalcoins and phoenixcoins too. Others of various denominations, as they never all rise at the same time.)

Also, at the moment, at the previous high-difficulty, I was earning 26.04AIR a day, with 3MHs worth of my miners, solo-mining. (One rig.)

At the current price, that is about $24.99 a day ($749.70 a month)... Which is more than any other scrypt-coin estimates, at the moment. (Highest scrypt-coin daily return is about $17.00 at the moment.)

That is about $8.3328/MHs

Now, with the lower difficulty, I will make more. (I assume a pool went down? DDOS or just internet gremlins.)

If you are making less in a pool... then your pool may be one of the ones having share-thefts occur. (Thus, you are getting less blocks, but splitting the blocks found, over more shares... thus, getting less than me, who is solo-mining.)

Once this coin hits Cryptsy, I will be buying more. I don't care for poloniex... Keeps freezing on me and does not load a lot. Plus, I prefer FinCEN listed exchanges now, after the whole Gox issue.

I am not overlooking that "hope to get rich". (That is what is driving them. At any expense.)

I, like you, "want" more of the low valued coins that those are willing to sell. Throw them my way, I eat them for breakfast!

But, I also still mine, because the difficulty is not up to 200,000 yet. So, in a year, when it is, this mining now will be a lot more rewarding. I have time to wait. My cows eat the neighbors grass! lol. I breath your AIR! (Not sure what that is saying. xD)

Demand also raises price... but A farmer has to ask for enough to cover the cost of the cows food...

Thus, difficulty (Us spending money on electricity [AKA: overhead loss]), DOES raise the price... There is no "demand" for AIR at the moment. Also, thus, "Demand is not what is driving the value." ("Want", possibly, for future HOPE, but not "Demand"... There are no crowds building in the streets, demanding AIRcoins. )

Want is not Demand. Need is Demand. Want is Desire. (However, "Want" does drive value over the price of demand. Look at the "Segway", and "Ferrari". No-one "Needs" those. They are not "Demanded" by anyone. But "Wanted or Desired" by many.)

We are at the point of HOPE and OVERHEAD-LOSS, at the moment... Step #2 is "Creating a Need" for AIR. Which was my post a few back. There is a slight level of WANT here... But that fades fast. Everyone Wants to become rich! Buying for $0.01 and selling for $100,000.00 but that is not NEED.

Are you guys setting-up the chips so they fire-up all at once, or in time-delayed succession? (To allow power to "restore", before reaching the amperage limits of the voltage-regulators and reference-voltages.) Turning-on all the lights in your house at once, and the AC and the fridge, with the coffee-pot, and the hair-dryer, would trip the main breaker. Even though the total running amperage is not high enough to trip the breaker, the in-rush of start-up amperage draw would trip the breaker. It is like a 150-lb man standing on a scale, then jumping on it. When he jumps, he weighs up to 10x his weight, in momentum, from acceleration. Electricity does a similar thing, as the brown-out from the dip, causes the VR's to kick-in high-mode, delivering 10x more power that it "detected" it needed, but once delivered, that starting resistance is no longer there, and the in-rush is too much amperage. (Or it does a full black-out, as the reference voltage falls out of spec, since all the available power was just absorbed by that temporary short-circuit of all the devices turning on at once.)

I realize the chips auto-run once started, pulling massive power as they run free... However, could that also be addressed by starting them in low-power mode, in addition to firing-up in sequence, then ramping them up to normal mode in sequence also?

One nice feature would be an AUTO-ADJUST feature. Tuning each chip to remain only powerful enough to operate within X-errors. (Which would really be a nice safety feature in the event of chip-decay from overheating. In the event of poor cooling or dead fans or unavoidable restrictions like dust build-up.) Every returned error would count as 1/2 of a potential speed reduction, which would decay after a few minutes. If two errors hit, within that time, the unit drops down a level. Thus, less errors, or none. Which it would attempt to auto-adjust back up, after a few more minutes... Just in-case it only needed a mini-break, or the errors were just a chance-occurrence. (1/3 for the more daring, and 1/4 for those trying to ride the upper-limit... 1/5, 1/6, 1/7, 1/8 for those who may have better management of heat, but purposely want to get that extra few hashes.)

P.S. Due to the speed of the chips... You might also want to hard-code a minimum hash-rate "Share limit". Not even attempting to broadcast diff-16 or lower... For instance... Because it would just flood the output-stream with too many collisions that would appear to be errors, only because they are not arriving completely through the data-lines. Most pools now have auto-adjusting hash-rate diff-levels, and also compensate for returned diff-levels, based on the difficulty actually returned. I am not sure how much diff-16 as a minimum would save you, but diff-128 to diff-256 would be what most suggest for a THs miner, and most auto-adjust to diff-512 anyways. (Diff-16 from a 1THs miner would surely saturate most internet connections with a stream of data that would end-up being buffered anyways.)

Remember, Milk was $0.05 a gallon at one time... Then everyone wanted it... It went to $0.25, then $1.50, then $3.00... There is no shortage of milk... We throw billions of gallons away, every month. We don't all rush-out to get milk, so there is no "demand". It is rising, simply because the dollar is falling in value.

Mining is the same way. 0.0001BTC/AIR is a good deal to someone who earned 10,000 in one day (Not many of those people). 0.001BTC/AIR is a good deal to those who earned 1,000 a day (Many of those now). 0.01BTC/AIR is a good deal to those who earned 100 a day (Few of us there, due to the fast diff-climb.) 0.1BTC/AIR will be a great deal in a week, when most of us can only earn 10 a day, or less...

Just an example. Not far from the truth. The faster those 100,000AIR-200,000AIR from the early dumpers go... the better. Because they have a new value of whatever price they sold for now. They are no longer worth only $0.000001 a piece, they were bought at $0.01802 a piece. Thus, they have to be sold higher now, or sold lower for a loss. (Again, another example, not actual prices.)

P.S. When you TRADE to TRADE for GAINS... it does not matter what the price is, when you buy it. It only matters that it goes up from what you purchased it for, when you sell it. Unless we had hedges, then you want it to go down. If you see it going down, sell it, then buy back at the bottom... Common trade trick.

P.P.S. +1 for PhoenixCoin support.

That is not about "This coin", that is about mining in general. Yes, those are pumpers and dumpers and value-hoppers. The ones who rape coins value. Creating loss for others, making it not-profitable to mine, then abandoning it, and gambling on a coin of lower value, pumping it to make it look valuable. That was sort of the point. (Don't bitch because you couldn't RAPE US, and move on... Just move-on.) *Not directed at you.

"Why can't it be more valuable, I can't cash-out now!" (Words of only a dumper. Because value NOW is not pertinent to anyone mining for future-value or investment. Cashing-out now, to leave and go mine else-where, is not "helping us or the coin"... So your above "method", is irrelevant to "making the coin valuable". We are not here to feed people looking to rape us. Staying here to mine is what FORCES the price to rise, because no-one can "Settle for less" as the difficulty rises by steady miners.)

P.S. Pool operators... keep an eye out for miners who do not find ANY coins... Yet claim shares. That is a trick to take rewards from pools, while destroying your "image" in the process. A simple week of mining should be sufficient to "challenge" any miner. No-one has that bad of luck, at these early stages. Suspicious miners should have every share "tested", and if they should have hit at-least ten blocks by the reported difficulty they are claiming, but have not hit one at all... then they are purposely throwing-out the found blocks, to reduce your other members returns. Also, you should ensure that all shares are checked, if possible. (Not all pools check all shares, and some miners know this, submitting fake and resubmitted shares that are valid as a hash, but do not hash-out to match.) Again, you could randomly "challenge" or test individuals for this type of theft. Pool operators do this to each-other, to squish the little-guys. This is not something a solo-miner would do. They would not gain from it.

A good indicator is the KGW difficulty. If it is only showing something like 800MHs for the network, by difficulty average, but the actual hash-power of all total pools is something like 1300MHs, then someone with a lot of hashing-power is claiming shares and not submitting actual found blocks. (Also a sign that they may be attempting to stall the network or trying to purposely fork it.)

Also make sure you are not using a pool-code that allows diff-1 shares to be counted. (That was an older exploit used to drain pools by users collecting shares where they were not actually earned.)

Same if one of your connections in the daemon is constantly rejecting your valid shares... block that IP... they are purposely trying to stall your discovery to increase the chances of them finding the next block. They will use many wallets/daemons that are set in place to reject any valid blocks you submit to the network. That is called a "Misbehaving node". We don't see that, only you do. You know what you submitted. If you submit and it is rejected, but no other block is "new" seconds later.. Chances are, you are being locked-out by them on purpose.